Category Archives: Compliance Issues

SCOTUS Decisions open a Can of Worms for Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in Abortion, Affirmative Action, Compliance, Compliance Issues, False Claims Act, Health Equity, Health Inequity, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Supreme Court, Tax Exempt Status, Usual and Customary Prices • Leave a comment
https://paulkeckley.com/the-keckley-report/2023/7/3/scotus-decisions-open-a-can-of-worms-for-healthcare/

Five recent Supreme Court rulings have reset the context for U.S. jurisprudence for years to come and open a can of worms for healthcare operators.

  • Last year’s SCOTUS decision ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (June 24, 2022) set the tone: in its 6-3 decision, the high court determined that that access to abortion is a state issue, not federal thus nullifying the 50-year-old legal precedent in Roe v. Wade and reversing 2 lower court rulings.
  • On June 1, 2023, in the United States v. Supervalu, petitioners sued SuperValu and Safeway under the False Claims Act (FCA) alleging they defrauded the Medicare and Medicaid by knowingly filing false claims. Essentially, the plaintiffs sought financial remedy because the retailers’ prices were not explicitly and specifically “usual and customary” prices. In its unanimous ruling, SCOTUS agreed that “the phrase ‘usual and customary’ is open to interpretation, but reasoned that “such facial ambiguity alone is not sufficient to preclude a finding that respondents knew their claims were false.”
  • On June 29, 2023, in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the court ruled 6-3 that affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of NC that consider an applicant’s race in college admissions are unconstitutional.
  • On June 30, 2023, in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023) By a vote of 6-3, SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment right of free speech prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
  • On June 30, 2023, in Department of Education v. Brown: By a unanimous vote, SCOTUS ruled that the 2 plaintiffs lacked standing to “Article III standing to assert a procedural challenge to the student-loan debt-forgiveness plan adopted by the Secretary of Education pursuant to Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act).” In effect, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit because it felt Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor (plaintiffs) did not prove that any injury suffered from not having their loans forgiven. Therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to address their procedural claim.

Each of these is specific to a circumstance but collectively they expose industries like healthcare to greater compliance risk, potential court challenges and operational complexity. Here’s an example:

The 58-year-old Kennedy-era legal precedent of affirmative action to redress racial inequity was the focus in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. SCOTUS essentially sided with plaintiffs who argued affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantee. In healthcare, research shows access to the healthcare system is disproportionately inaccessible to persons of color, especially if they’re poor. They improve when individuals are treated by clinicians of the same race but only about 5% of doctors in America are Black, compared to 12% of the general population and only 6% of doctors in the U.S. are Hispanic while the group accounts for nearly almost 20% of the general population.

Notwithstanding the uncanny similarities between higher education and healthcare (both have raised prices above GDP and overall inflation rates for 2 decades, both jealously protect their reputations against outside transparency and unflattering report cards, both feature competition between public and private institutions and both face questions about the value of their efforts), the issue of diversity is central in both. Affirmative action is a means to that end, but at least for now and in higher education, it’s not constitutional.

Might workforce diversity and clinician training efforts be stymied by the prospect of court challenges? Might “affirmative action” in healthcare be replaced by “holistic review” to enable consideration of an applicant’s life or quality of character as some conservative jurists have suggested?  

My take:

Affirmative action per the example above is only one of many constructs widely accepted in healthcare today where court challenges may alter the future. Individual rights and free speech including online medical advice, the role of state governments, fraud and abuse and other domains are equally exposed.

It’s clear this court is not threatened by legal precedent nor cautious about public opinion on touchy issues. Thus, immediate imperatives for healthcare organizations are these:

Revisit legal precedents on which the ways we operate are based: Roles and responsibilities in US healthcare are sacrosanct and protected by legal precedent: Physicians diagnose and treat; others don’t. Insurers pay claims but don’t practice medicine. Not for profit hospitals serve community needs in exchange for tax-exemption. Public health programs that serve the poor are funded by local and state governments. Employer sponsored benefits underwrite the system’s profitability and fund its hospital Part A obligations and so on. Might a conservative court revisit these in the context of the constitution’s “general welfare” purpose and redirect its focus, roles and structure?

Revisit terms and phrases where consensus is presumed but specific definition is lacking: Just as SCOTUS recognized ambiguity in applying terms like “usual and customary” in its Supervalu-Safeway ruling, it is likely to challenge other widely used phrases used in healthcare that often lack specific referents i.e., quality, safety, efficacy, effectiveness, community benefit, charity care, evidence-based care, cost-effectiveness, not-for-profit, competition, value” and many others. Might SCOTUS force the industry to more specifically define its most widely used phrases in order to justify its claims?

For everyone in healthcare, these rulings open a can of worms.  Compliance risk assessments, scenario plan updates required!

CommonSpirit Health mandates COVID-19 vaccination for employees in 21 states

Posted on by • Posted in Compliance, Compliance Issues, Core Values, Coronavirus, Coronavirus Delta Variant, Coronavirus Mutation, Employee Mandate, Employee Termination, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Schools, Public Trust, Quality of Care, Responsibility, Unvaccinated, Vaccination, Vaccine, Vaccine Development, Vaccine Efficacy, Vaccine Hesitancy Rate, Vaccine Mandate, Vaccine Mandatory, Vaccine Production, Vaccine Safety, Vaccine Skepticism, Vaccine Supply • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/commonspirit-health-mandates-covid-19-vaccination-for-employees-in-21-states.html?origin=BHRE&utm_source=BHRE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G
About Us | Serving the Common Good | CommonSpirit Health

CommonSpirit Health is requiring full COVID-19 vaccination for its 150,000 employees, the Chicago-based health system said Aug. 12. 

The requirement applies to employees at CommonSpirit’s 140 hospitals and more than 1,000 care sites and facilities in 21 states. It includes physicians, advanced practice providers, volunteers and others caring for patients at health system facilities. 

“As healthcare providers, we have a responsibility to help end this pandemic and protect our patients, our colleagues and those in our communities —  including the most vulnerable among us,” Lloyd H. Dean, CEO of CommonSpirit, said in a news release. “An abundance of evidence shows that the vaccines are safe and highly effective. Throughout the pandemic we have made data-driven decisions that will help us best fulfill our healing mission, and requiring vaccination is critical to maintaining a safe care environment.”

The compliance deadline for the vaccination requirement is Nov. 1, although the implementation date will vary by region in accordance with local and state regulations. Employees who are not in compliance and do not obtain a medical or religious exemption risk losing their jobs.

Hospitals drag feet on new regulations to disclose costs of medical services

Posted on by • Posted in Compliance, Compliance Issues, Cost Reduction, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Out of Pocket Expenses, Price Transparency, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/25/health-202-hospitals-drag-feet-new-regulations-disclose-costs-medical-services/

Price Transparency In Medicine Faces Stiff Opposition — From Hospitals And Doctors | Kaiser Health News

Hospitals are now required to disclose the prices they secretly negotiate with insurers.

But many are dragging their feet on the new regulations, which were passed under President Donald Trump and could very well stay in place under President Biden.

The rules went into place Jan. 1, but hospital compliance is spotty.

“Hospitals are playing a hide-and-seek game,” said Ge Bai, an expert on health-care pricing at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Even with this regulation, most of them are not being fully transparent.”  

Hospitals lost a bruising court battle last year to stop the rules, which require them to publish a list of prices for goods and services. The point is to bring more transparency to prices for medical goods and services — information that has long been inaccessible to consumers. The new rules were a centerpiece of Trump’s promise to inject more price transparency in the health-care system and curb surprise billing.  

But Nisha Kurani, a policy analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation who is tracking hospital responses to the new rule, said she’s seen the full gamut. 

MedStar in Washington posted its prices in an Excel sheet on its website, but other hospitals only posted price estimates, uploaded files in difficult to use formats, or promised to release information only after someone inputs their insurance, Kurani said. 

A Gothamist investigation found that only one of five major New York hospitals posted a list of their negotiated services to their website, and even then, not for all procedures. The fine for not complying with the new rules — $300 a day — is a drop in the bucket for many hospitals. 

The rules probably aren’t going away anytime soon. 

The Biden administration hasn’t taken any public position on the rules — and right now, officials are focused on reversing dozens of other Trump administration regulations they believe are damaging to health insurance and costs in the United States.

Revising the hospital transparency rules — if that’s even something the new administration wants to do — would likely be far down on the priority list, despite heavy lobbying by the hospital industry to suspend enforcement of the new rule. 

Plus, price transparency is broadly popular among the public and was one of the planks of a joint health policy plan developed by a task force Biden formed with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) after the 2020 primary elections. 

The American Hospital Association says staff who would help with compliance are stretched thin.

Molly Smith, the association’s group vice president for public policy, said many of the staff members who would normally be tasked with compiling and formatting the price data are the same people being asked to help set up patient registries and vaccine tracking systems in response to the pandemic.  

“We’ve got a lot of hospitals that are at or beyond capacity,” Smith said.  

A lawyer for the hospital association said that it is considering petitioning its legal case to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the lobbying group has been pushing the Biden administration to suspend enforcement of the new rule. 

Consumer advocates like the transparency rules designed to protect patients and drive down health-care costs.

“In the past there was absolutely no power for the consumer. It was like highway robbery being committed every day by the health-care system,” said Cynthia Fisher, head of the nonprofit Patient Rights Advocate, which pushes for price transparency.  

But now, Fisher says, “it’s the American consumer who is going to drive down the cost of care.”

But the effect might be modest.

Experts in health-care economics hotly debate whether the price transparency rules will, in fact, drive down costs. Even those who support the changes say the effect might be incremental.

“I don’t think it’s going to be an earthquake in terms of pricing, but it’s a first step in the right direction,” said Bai.  

There are several reasons the new price transparency rule may not have a massive effect on hospital prices. Perhaps the biggest, and one often cited by the hospital lobby, is that most Americans are not going to pay the negotiated price for a procedure. Instead, they are likely to pay co-pays or coinsurance that amount to a fraction of this price. 

This isn’t always true, of course. Those with high-deductible plans may pay the negotiated rate, and for those without insurance paying out of pocket, it can be helpful to get a peek behind the sticker price. But even for these patients, it may be challenging to extract useful information from unwieldy spreadsheets full of obscure billing codes. 

Bai said that she is hopeful that third parties may make some of the pricing information easier for consumers to use. And some self-insured employers may start identifying cheaper providers and incentivizing patients to use them. The rules also require hospitals to provide cost-sharing estimates for commonly used procedures in an easily navigable format. 

Still, price competition works only if there are players to compete. 

The market for health care has become increasingly consolidated as hospitals merge and buy up physician practices. If a hospital is the only health-care provider in town, then there’s not a whole lot patients can do about high prices, even if they think they’re unfair. 

“I don’t think transparency will fundamentally change the power balance between the payer and the hospital in many markets,” Bai said. 

CVS long-term care pharmacy sued by DOJ over fraudulent prescribing practices

Posted on by • Posted in Compliance Issues, Dept of Justice (DOJ), False Claims Act, Fraud, Fraud and Abuse, Lawsuit, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Prescription Drugs, Retail Pharmacy, Rev Cycle Management, Whistleblower Lawsuit • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cvs-long-term-pharmacy-sued-by-doj-over-fraudulent-prescribing-practices/569268/

Dive Brief:

  • CVS Health and its Omnicare business are being sued by the Department of Justice over alleged fraudulent billing of Medicare and other government programs for outdated prescriptions for elderly and disabled people.
  • The DOJ suit, filed Tuesday in New York, joins whistleblower ligitation accusing Omnicare of billing federal healthcare programs for hundreds of thousands of drugs based on out-of-date prescriptions for individuals in assisted living facilities, group homes, independent living communities and other long-term care facilities between 2010 and 2018. The lawsuit seeks civil penalties and other damages.
  • “We do not believe there is merit to these claims and we intend to vigorously defend the matter in court,” CVS spokesperson Joe Goode told Healthcare Dive. “We are confident that Omnicare’s dispensing practices will be found to be consistent with state requirements and industry-accepted practices.”

Dive Insight:

The suit alleges Omnicare, the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy, kept dispensing antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants and other drugs based off invalid prescriptions for months, and sometimes years, without obtaining fresh scripts from patients’ doctors.

Managers at the long-term care business allegedly ignored prescription refill limitations and expiration dates and forced staff to fill prescriptions quickly, pressuring some facilities to process and dispense thousands of orders daily. When prescriptions expired, Omnicare “rolled over” the scripts, assigning them a new number, allowing the pharmacy to dispense the drug indefinitely without need for doctor involvement.

This practice allowed Omnicare to continually dispenses drugs for seniors and disabled occupants in more than 3,000 residential long-term care facilities, at an ongoing risk to their health, according to DOJ. Many of the prescription drugs were meant to treat serious conditions like dementia, depression or heart disease and have side effects when not closely monitored by a physician — particularly when taken in tandem with other medications.

The pharmacy then submitted knowingly false claims to Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE, which serves military personnel, for the illegally dispensed drugs over an eight-year period; and lied to the government about the status of the prescriptions. CVS Health senior management was also aware of the scheme, according to DOJ.

“A pharmacy’s fundamental obligation is to ensure that drugs are dispensed only under the supervision of treating doctors who monitor patients’ drug therapies,” Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said in a statement. “Omnicare blatantly ignored this obligation in favor drugs out the door as quickly as possible to make more money.”

The government joined the lawsuit originally brought by Uri Bassan, an Albuquerque, New Mexico pharmacist for Omnicare, filed in June 2015. The original whistleblower suit said Omnicare’s compliance department was aware of the “rolling over” process, but did nothing to stop it.

This is by no means the first time the CVS subsidiary, established in 1981 and acquired in 2015 for about $12.7 billion, has been under the federal microscope for fraud.

Omnicare has a history of friction with the DOJ
  • 2006Omnicare pays almost $50 million over improper Medicaid claims

  • 2009Omnicare shells out $98 million to settle kickback allegations

  • 2012Omnicare enters into a $50 million settlement following a DOJ investigation finding its pharmacies dispensed drugs to long-term care facility residents without valid prescriptions

  • Feb. 2014Omnicare pays the government more than $4 million to settle kickback allegations

In the May 16, 2017 suit, the government accused Omnicare of designing an automated label verification system that purposefully inflated profits by submitting claims for generic drugs different than those given to patients. CVS said that all happened before it acquired Omnicare.

​Omnicare provides pharmacy benefits for post-acute care and senior living care, including in skilled nursing facilities, hospitals and health systems and assisted living communities.

Despite the lucrative market in an aging U.S. population with complicated drug needs, Omnicare is an underperforming business in otherwise healthy times for CVS. The unit triggered a $2.2 billion goodwill impairment charge following a late 2018 test, according to CVS’ fourth quarter filing last year.

Omnicare operates 160 pharmacies in 47 states. During the eight years under investigation, Omnicare submitted more than 35 million claims for drugs dispensed to Medicare beneficiaries in assisted living facilities alone, DOJ says.

 

 

 

 

DOJ breaks up alleged genetic testing fraud scheme estimated at $2.1 billion

Posted on by • Posted in Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Compliance Issues, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Dept of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), Fraud, Genetic Testing, Kickbacks, Medicare, Medicare Fraud, Physician, Rev Cycle Management, Telemedicine • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/doj-breaks-alleged-genetic-testing-fraud-scheme-estimated-21-billion?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkdNMU56WmxabVl3TWpRMSIsInQiOiI0dlhaYUJpT2xBU0FqeDNmWkRlZHVZYnRsZ2xBK3pxMmN6RG5kS3Q1UWgrWFYyNllIK2lLZEYzclRDWUYyTFwvOGdhUzRVSnlscG5MQjBtY0NwT2d1TjZHdXJYRUlYRGszVEhrQmY5b0xhRDlFTWNTNUEwWnVvWGUwZXE3ME9kdGgifQ%3D%3D

The defendants ordered unnecessary tests that were reimbursed by Medicare, with laboratories sharing the profit, DOJ says.

The U.S. Department of Justice has charged 35 people with unlawfully charging Medicare $2.1 billion in what it said is one of the largest healthcare fraud schemes in history.

The 35 alleged offenders were charged in five separate federal districts, and were linked to dozens of telemedicine firms and laboratories focused on genetic testing for cancer. The people charged, including nine doctors and one other medical professional, cumulatively billed Medicare billions for cancer genetic tests, the DOJ said in a press release.

The charges were a culmination of coordinated law enforcement activities over the past month that were led by the Criminal Division’s Health Care Fraud Unit, resulting in charges against more than 380 individuals who allegedly billed federal healthcare programs for more than $3 billion, and allegedly prescribed and dispensed approximately 50 million controlled substance pills in Houston, across Texas, the West Coast, the Gulf Coast, the Northeast, Florida and Georgia, and the Midwest.

These include charges against 105 defendants for opioid-related offenses, and charges against 178 medical professionals.

The investigation targeted an alleged scheme involving the payment of illegal kickbacks and bribes by CGx laboratories in exchange for the referral of Medicare beneficiaries by medical professionals working with fraudulent telemedicine companies for expensive, and medically unnecessary, cancer genetic tests.

According to the DOJ, the targets of the scheme were primarily seniors, who were approached at health fairs, at their homes during door-to-door visits, or through telemarketing calls. The “recruiters,” as they were called, would approach seniors about supposedly free cancer screenings or generic cheek swab tests, and the recruiters would then obtain the seniors’ Medicare information for the purposes of fraudulent billing or identify theft.

The recruiter would then get a doctor to sign off on a genetic so a lab would process it, and then pay a kickback in exchange for ordering the test. The lab would process the test and bill Medicare, and once it was reimbursed, would share the proceeds with the recruiter, according to the charges.

Often, the test results were not provided to the beneficiaries, or were worthless to their actual doctors. Some of the defendants allegedly controlled a telemarketing network that lured hundreds of thousands of elderly and/or disabled patients into a criminal scheme that affected victims across the U.S.

The defendants allegedly paid doctors to prescribe CGx testing, either without any patient interaction or with only a brief phone conversation with patients they had never met or seen.

WHAT’S THE IMPACT

In addition to the DOJ charges, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Center for Program Integrity said it took adverse administrative action against cancer genetic testing companies and medical professionals who submitted more than $1.7 billion in claims to the Medicare program.

The DOJ Criminal Division, along with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General and the FBI, spearheaded the investigation.

The DOJ calls the scheme one of the largest it has ever handled.

THE LARGER TREND

Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which maintains 15 strike forces operating in 24 districts, has charged nearly 4,000 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $16 billion.

In addition, CMS, working in conjunction with the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

The newest Medicare fraud scheme is the second to be uncovered in the last month. Earlier in September, a telemedicine CEO pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and pay and receive healthcare kickbacks and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in a scheme estimated at $424 million.

ON THE RECORD

“Unfortunately, audacious schemes such as those alleged in the indictments are pervasive and exploit the promise of new medical technologies such as genetic testing and telemedicine for financial gain, not patient care,” said Deputy Inspector General for Investigations Gary L. Cantrell of HHS-OIG. “Instead of receiving quality care, Medicare beneficiaries may be victimized in the form of scare tactics, identity theft, and in some cases, left to pay out of pocket.  We will continue working with our law enforcement partners to investigate those who steal from federal healthcare programs and protect the millions of Americans who rely on them.”

“Healthcare fraud and related illegal kickbacks and bribes impact the entire nation,” said Assistant Director Terry Wade of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division. “Fraudulently using genetic testing laboratories for unnecessary tests erodes the confidence of patients and costs taxpayers millions of dollars. These investigations revealed some medical professionals placing their greed before the needs of the patients and communities they serve. Today’s law enforcement actions reinforce that the FBI, along with its partners, will continue to pursue and stop this type of illegal activity.”

 

Texas docs, pharmacists charged in alleged opioid pill mill scheme

Posted on by • Posted in Compliance Issues, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Dept of Justice (DOJ), Fraud, Health System, Hospital, Kickbacks, Medicaid Fraud, Medicare Fraud, Opioid Epidemic, Rev Cycle Management • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/texas-docs-pharmacists-charged-in-alleged-opioid-pill-mill-scheme/563270/

Dive Brief:

  • The U.S. Department of Justice said Wednesday it charged 58 people in Texas in connection with their alleged roles in various schemes to defraud government health programs, including distributing and dispensing medically unnecessary opioids, billing Medicaid for non-emergency ambulance services that were never actually provided and paying kickbacks and laundering money through durable medical equipment companies.
  • The allegations involved multiple programs including Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, the Department of Labor-Office of Worker’s Compensation programs as well as private insurance companies.
  • Separately, DOJ brought charges against a total of 34 people for their alleged participation in Medicare and Medicaid fraud schemes in other states, including California, Arizona and Oregon. Seventeen of the people charged in those schemes were doctors or licensed medical professionals.

Dive Insight:

Created in 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force​ has units operating in 23 districts, and has charged nearly 4,000 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $14 billion. It’s a joint effort between DOJ and HHS to deter healthcare fraud.

According to the most recent statistics, from January, the strike force has brought 2,117 criminal actions, secured 2,754 indictments and recovered $3.3 billion in connection with its investigations.

HHS declared the opioid crisis a national emergency in 2017. And the DOJ is increasingly focusing on fraud related to opioids, including going after medical professionals allegedly involved in the unlawful distribution of opioids and other prescription narcotics.

“Sadly, opioid proliferation is nothing new to Americans,” U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick of the Southern District of Texas said in a statement announcing the charges. “What is new is the reinforced fight being taken to dirty doctors and shady pharmacists,” he said.

The coordinated healthcare fraud enforcement operation across Texas resulted in charges involving networks of “pill mill” clinics that led to $66 million in losses and the distribution of 6.2 million pills, the government said. Sixteen doctors and pharmacists were among those charged.

And that’s on top of last month, when the Health Care Fraud Unit’s Houston Strike Force charged dozens of people in a trafficking network that diverted more than 23 million oxycodone, hydrocodone and carisoprodol pills.

The Texas actions also involved healthcare fraud other than opioid diversion, including fraudulent physician orders for durable medical equipment, fraudulent claims for ambulance services and stealing protected healthcare information.

The separate actions in California, Arizona and Oregon involved schemes that ran the gamut from billing for medically unnecessary compounded drugs, unnecessary cardiac treatments and testing, billing for chiropractic services never provided and a hospice kickback scheme.

 

 

 

DOJ investigates Providence St. Joseph Health’s Swedish Health Services

Posted on by • Posted in Civil Investigation, Compliance Issues, Dept of Justice (DOJ), Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Net Income, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Restructure, Stark Law • Leave a comment

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/providers/doj-investigates-providence-st-joseph-healths-swedish-health-services?utm_source=modern-healthcare-daily-finance-thursday&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190829&utm_content=article1-readmore

The U.S. Department of Justice is probing Providence St. Joseph Health’s Swedish Health Services in a civil investigation, the not-for-profit integrated health system revealed in its recent quarterly earnings report.

The DOJ requested documents from Seattle-based Swedish related to certain arrangements, joint ventures and physician organizations, according to the report. Providence St. Joseph said that the investigation will not have a “material adverse effect” on its financials.

“Like all large institutions, Swedish is subject periodically to investigations and lawsuits,” Swedish said in a statement. “Per our policy, we are not able to discuss the specifics of any investigation. However, Swedish fully cooperates with all investigations.”

Renton, Wash.-based Providence St. Joseph also disclosed in the earnings report malpractice allegations against certain affiliates, although the “probable recoveries in these proceedings and the estimated costs and expenses of defense will be within applicable insurance limits or will not materially adversely affect the business or properties of the system,” the organization said.

The DOJ said in a statement that it does not confirm, deny or comment on investigations.

In 2014, HHS’ Office of Inspector General audited Swedish Health’s Swedish Medical Center–First Hill, an acute-care hospital in Seattle. It found that about two-thirds of 257 inpatient and outpatient claims from 2010 to 2012 did not fully comply with Medicare billing requirements, resulting in net overpayments of nearly $937,500.

Also, Swedish Health was accused in 2017 of asking neurosurgeons to increase patient volume and perform unnecessary surgeries.

The recent investigation involving Swedish may relate to a delicate balance providers must strike with their affiliates.

Health systems have been carefully navigating around the Stark law, which aims to curb Medicare and Medicaid spending by prohibiting physicians and hospitals from making referrals based on their financial self-interest. But the 1989 statutes conflict with outcome-oriented care, providers argue as the law dissuades them from incentive-based arrangements.

The Stark law offers little, if any, room for error and carries significant financial penalties, experts said. Maintaining compliance and abiding audits can drain resources.

Through six months of Providence St. Joseph Health’s 2019 fiscal year, it reported an operating income of $250 million on operating revenue of $12.6 billion, up from $30 million of operating income on $12 billion of operating revenue over the same period prior. The health system reported $41 million in restructuring costs, as it aims to streamline operations and boost productivity.

For 2018, the organization drew just $3 million in operating income last year on $24.4 billion in total operating revenue. Excluding asset impairment, severance and consulting costs related to restructuring, the system said its 2018 operating income would have been $165 million. The restructuring costs are being spread across 2018 and 2019.

As it restructures, Providence St. Joseph has been expanding its non-acute portfolio, forming a for-profit population health management company, launching its second, $150 million venture fund and buying a revenue-cycle management company based on blockchain technology.

 

 

 

Michigan surgeon accused of $60M billing fraud

Posted on by • Posted in Compliance Issues, Dept of Justice (DOJ), Fraud, Lawsuit, Medicaid Fraud, Medicare Fraud, Money Laundering, Rev Cycle Management • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/michigan-surgeon-accused-of-60m-billing-fraud.html?origin=rcme&utm_source=rcme

Image result for money laundering

An indictment unsealed July 10 charges Vasso Godiali, MD, with orchestrating a $60 million healthcare fraud scheme and laundering proceeds from the scheme, according to the Department of Justice.

Dr. Godiali, a vascular surgeon, allegedly submitted false claims to Medicaid, Medicare and Blue Cross of Michigan for services that weren’t provided and exploited Modifier 59 to improperly unbundle claims. Dr. Godiali allegedly claimed he was performing several separate procedures when he was only entitled to a single reimbursement for a single procedure, according to the Justice Department.

The indictment further alleges Dr. Godiali used six corporations to launder roughly $49 million in proceeds from the healthcare fraud scheme, according to the Justice Department.

Dr. Godiali faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for the healthcare fraud charge and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for money laundering, according to the Justice Department.

 

 

Hospital Pass-through Billing Scheme Detailed in Florida Plea Agreement

Posted on by • Posted in Compliance Issues, Health System, Hospital, Kickbacks, Rev Cycle Management, Urine Testing • Leave a comment

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/hospital-pass-through-billing-scheme-detailed-florida-plea-agreement

Kyle Marcotte of Jacksonville Beach admitted to using rural hospitals in a scheme that kicked back more than $50 million in insurance reimbursements for urine tests.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Marcotte, the owner of a substance abuse treatment facility, sent his patients’ urine samples to a lab that retuned 40% of the insurance reimbursements to Marcotte. 

The lab owner then arranged with the managers of two rural hospitals in Florida to have the testing billed to private insurers at a better reimbursement under the hospitals’ in-network contracts.

The scheme expanded to include rural hospitals in Georgia, and more drug rehab centers, and laundered more than $57million in illicit reimbursements.

The owner of a Florida substance abuse treatment center pleaded guilty Tuesday to his role in a pass-through billing scheme that used rural hospitals to launder millions of dollars, the Department of Justice said.

Kyle Ryan Marcotte, 36, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and agreed to forfeit $10.2 million. His sentencing date has not been set, DOJ said.

According to DOJ, Marcotte, the owner of a substance abuse treatment facility in Jacksonville Beach, Florida. In 2015, Marcotte sent his patients’ urine samples to a lab that retuned 40% of the insurance reimbursements to Marcotte.

The lab owner then arranged with the managers of Campbellton–Graceville Hospital and Regional General Hospital Williston in Florida to have the testing billed to private insurers through the rural hospitals at a better reimbursement under the hospitals’ in-network contracts, DOJ said.

Attempts by HealthLeaders’ to contact officials at Campbellton–Graceville Hospital and Regional General Hospital Williston for comment were not successful.

Marcotte also admitted that he brokered deals with other substance abuse treatment centers to have their urine tests billed through the two hospitals in exchange for Marcotte receiving 10% of the insurance reimbursements. The other rehab centers received 30% of the reimbursements, DOJ said.

The lab owner, who was not identified by DOJ, then acquired Chestatee Hospital, in Dahlonega, Georgia, and other rural hospitals, and Marcotte continued to supply samples from his rehab facility and brokered deals with other substance rehab facilities that used those hospitals, DOJ said.

The reimbursements were sent from the hospitals to the lab, which sent them to two companies Marcotte controlled, North Florida Labs and KTL Labs.

Marcotte used the reimbursements from KTL Labs to pay $50 million in kickbacks to at least 88 companies and people operating other rehab facilities who involved in the scheme.  The total amount of money involved in the laundering scheme was $57.3 million, DOJ said.

 

 

 

Will you get your Money’s Worth?

Posted on by • Posted in C-Suite, Compliance Issues, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Independent Contractor, Interim CEO, Interim CFO, Interim Executives, Interim Resources, Leadership, Recruiting, Talent Management, Unexpected Problems, Value Proposition • Leave a comment

Will you get your Money’s Worth?

InterimCFO

All about Interim Executive Services in healthcare administration.

Will you get your Money’s Worth?

Abstract: This article is a continuation of the series on the value proposition of Interim Executive Consulting.  In this article, I look at the value proposition from the consultant’s perspective.

Recently, I was discussing an interim opportunity in a smaller hospital with a referral source.  The prospective argument was that the client did not have the capacity (did not want) to pay a market rate fee.  You never hear hospitals argue with their lawyers or other consultants on this point, but I digress.

Based on my experience, there are two things that you can be sure of in any interim engagement.  One is that as soon as you think you have an idea of what is going on around you, you had better get ready for a big and sometimes very nasty surprise.  The other is that you are going to find challenges and problems in the situation that the client either intentionally withheld or that the client had no idea of in the first place.  Some clients have told me after skeletons started falling from closets that they harbored the fear that if they were fully transparent that an interim consultant would refuse the gig.  What they do not know is that as professional Interim Executives, we usually do not get the call until the situation is challenging and that if we are distressed by the surprises and uncertainty that characterize Interim Executive Services, we would have found something else to do.  Remember, firefighters run toward a fire when everyone else is running away.

Another principle of doing interim work in my experience is that there is no correlation between the size of the organization and its capacity to produce drama, challenges, and vexing problems.  An argument can be made, and my on-point experience confirms that the risk is higher the smaller the organization because smaller organizations do not have the intellectual and bandwidth resources necessary to avoid creating or falling into serious problems.  If the issues have anything to do with compliance, the potential risks to the interim executive increase exponentially, especially if they are going to be executing documents or making representations on behalf of the organization.  Compliance related signatory authority risk is a risk that cannot be insured by either the consultant or the client. I told the referral source that if anything, there should probably be a significant premium associated with going into a smaller place.

What is a client to do?  I try to mitigate this risk for my client by offering a no-notice, no-fault termination clause in my contract.  The day that the client decides that I am not providing value, I am out of there.  I do not wish to become a perceived burden to an organization during what is already likely an awkward transition.  I have not been released from an interim engagement.  To the contrary, the opposite is true.  In every one of my interim engagements, the timeline has been extended, extensively in some cases once the client appreciates the value proposition.  My average ’90 – 120′ day gig lasts around nine months, and my longest has been over two years.

I have stated repeatedly in these articles that I do not follow bad people and I stand by that contention.  However, this does not mean that there will not be serious problems in an organization.  I followed a CFO that was compelled to resign among other things for digging in over what he believed was a non-compliant acquisition of a physician practice that had millions of dollars of goodwill baked into the deal along with lavish estimates of the value of furniture, fixtures, and equipment.  In another situation, the CEO had been overridden on multiple occasions by a Board that was determined to do non-compliant deals with physicians.  I could go on and on about these types of challenges.

Problems do not have to be compliance related to be challenging and of high potential value.  During the course of every engagement, I am routinely asked, “Is this the worst you have ever seen?”  Most of the time the answer is no, and in every case, it is situation specific.  I was engaged by a hospital to assess the revenue cycle.  Other than the AR being currently fairly valued following multiple unfavorable audit adjustments, about everything else in the revenue cycle process was broken as the client had expected.  The resulting intervention increased cash collections more than $10 million in the next year on around $300 million of revenue.  As an aside, in an organization of this size with a typical operating margin in the 3% range, this intervention more than doubled operating income so, in context, it was a pretty big deal.  This organization was trying to save money by doing things like buying thinner tongue depressors and cutting the amount of soap housekeeping could put in mop buckets while it threw away all of the savings and more in the revenue cycle.  It was the worst revenue cycle operation I have seen measured by results or lack thereof.  This same organization had some of the strongest and highest performing functions in other areas that I have experienced.  Even in the revenue cycle, I got to meet some of the smartest, most dedicated people I have ever known.  They were handicapped by a dearth of leadership and decrepit systems.  None of this supported a conclusion that the organization was terrible or on balance, it was the worst I have ever seen although the revenue cycle concerns did have something to do with the prior CFO being ‘freed up to seek other opportunities.’

What is a consultant to do?  My advice is to the degree possible and reasonable, stand your ground on your professional fee.  It would be nice if you knew you were going to a cake-walk that would mainly be a paid vacation and that you could confidently offer a come-on rate to land the gig.  You know the reality is that you are probably going into a complicated, high-stress situation that is going to tax all of your physical and mental capacity.  This situation is exacerbated by desperate or ignorant consultants and firms that will take any gig at any rate when they have an unsophisticated buyer or just to have something to do.  I have considered offering such a price based on not finding any problems.  For example, I could offer a 30% – 50% discount for a lush sabbatical that would be reversed if (when) issues begin to emerge.  Maybe I could even bargain to double my rate upon discovery of the first compliance problem.   Unfortunately, the world does not work this way, and if you are up against an unsophisticated or ignorant potential client, there is an excellent chance you are going to be undercut by an equally ignorant potential consultant.  You have to decide for yourself how much risk you are willing to take on.  How much is it worth to you to put yourself, your net worth and your family’s livelihood into play in a situation where you may be exposing yourself to the risk of becoming the target of a government compliance investigation?  In a bad case scenario, you could become a witness in a hostile position vis-a-vis the client. The government is currently pursuing multiple felony charges against John Holland (look him up on the internet) even though he alleges and there is apparently little evidence that he benefited directly or indirectly from compliance problems that occurred in organizations he served.  By the way, John may and probably did inherit some of the issues that resulted in criminal charges, i.e., the problems were present in the organization when he started.  Tell me again Mr. cut-rate consultant or firm how anxious you are to get yourself into a situation like this?  By the way, if you are placed by a firm and compliance problems emerge, you are going to be on your own.  Do not forget this.

If you are a decision maker and you are getting resistance to rate discounting from interim executive services providers, it is probably because of their prior experiences and bias about potential problems in your organization.  Instead of dismissing them for something cheaper, you might want to understand better where they are coming from and how that might translate into risk you are bearing that you might not even recognize.  You have to accept the fact that you would not be seeking interim services if you did not have a significant challenge on your hands.  Your best defense against getting into a deal that could make the situation worse is to negotiate an agreement that can be exited rapidly and without recourse. You may have problems that are as yet undiagnosed.  Your run in your current situation could be riding on the ability of the interim executive you choose to pull your bacon out of a fire and potentially save many of your direct reports’ jobs in the process.  What is that worth to you?

Contact me to discuss any questions or observations you might have about these articles, leadership, transitions or interim services.  I might have an idea or two that might be valuable to you.  An observation from my experience is that we need better leadership at every level in organizations.  Some of my feedback is coming from people that are demonstrating an interest in advancing their careers, and I am writing content to address those inquiries.

The easiest way to keep abreast of this blog is to become a follower.  You will be notified of all updates as they occur.  To become a follower, click the “Following” bubble that usually appears near the bottom of each web page.

I encourage you to use the comment section at the bottom of each article to provide feedback and stimulate discussion.  I welcome input and feedback that will help me to improve the quality and relevance of this work.

This blog is original work.  I claim copyright of this material with reproduction prohibited without attribution.  I note and provide links to supporting documentation for non-original material.  If you choose to link any of my articles, I’d appreciate a notification.

If you would like to discuss any of this content, provide private feedback or ask questions, you can reach me at ras2@me.com.